Maybe since we have revived this old thread (partly because the name of the thread is too good to let go) we should be able to agree that objects move in the direction of the net highest source of gravitational attraction in the surrounding space. How a given model accounts for that is in the eyes of the modeler. "Another model of gravity" should present some mechanics to explain how gravity works, so if there are no mechanics that make sense, how can it be called a model of gravity. Show me the money mechanics!

And tell me if you think the solution to the mechanics is not a solution to quantum gravity.

A few members in the past have asked about gravitational waves, not understanding what exactly it is that is waving, and though I have addressed that topic several times in my threads, I am still capable of complicating the answer beyond all comprehension, lol.

Just kidding, this answer makes perfect sense from the perspective of the ISU solution to quantum gravity, and will represent a big improvement over any level of detail covered before, even better than how I described wave action in the ISU and Quantum Gravity (QG) threads “What are they saying about quantum gravity” and before that in the thread “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”.

A wave

In the ISU model, a wave is a spherically advancing front of energy that originates at a point in space, and expands spherically away from that point of origin until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting with adjacent expanding wave fronts in the local energy density environment.

Note: Everything in the ISU is composed of wave energy, and involves ongoing wave action. To emphasize the “sameness” of the action processes in the ISU, the common denominator of all wave action is that the waves are carrying gravitational wave energy through the medium of space.

A wavefront

Definition of a wave front: a wave front is a line of differential between the wave energy density environment in front of the advancing wave front, and the wave energy density environment behind the wave front.

As the volume of the spherical wave expands, the energy density behind the front is at a different level of density from the energy density in front of the front, and that differential is required for the wave front to exist and advance.

Note: The wavefront advances under the force of wave energy density equalization.

Energy density, and energy density environments

What do we mean by energy density?

Any patch of the medium of space contains wave energy in the form of wavefronts, carrying wave energy through that space. The basic energy density of that space can be characterized as the volume of the space divided by the number of spherical wavefronts and fractional wave fronts traversing that space (a fractional wave front is a spherical wave front that has been interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding wave front). There are several factors that come into play when comparing the energy density in two different patches of space that will come up in discussion.

Energy density environment(s)

When the energy density throughout a patch of space is consistent, meaning that the wave action in the space is essentially the same throughout the space, that space qualifies as an energy density environment. Energy density environments that exist adjacent to each other, without any artificial separation, will be interacting with each other as wavefronts move actively form one environment to the other.

The two environments will continue to interact until the wave action within their contiguous space is equalized, meaning that the wave action across the space of the two environments will reach internal consistency and they will have become one energy density environment.

The term “wave action” has been mentioned several times in the definitions so far. There are various levels of wave action throughout the ISU that stand out because they represent significantly different levels of energy density and are described by unique processes peculiar to each level, in spite of the “sameness” of the basic action.

Each of the levels of the model where quantization takes place all are characterized by the same scenario (I refer to that as the “sameness” doctrine of the ISU). The common scenario at all levels is the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding “parent” waves (spherically expanding wave fronts), and each convergence results in a combination of energy from both parent waves in the overlap space. The overlap continues until a third wave that contains a quantum of energy is reached. The third wave then becomes a quantum of energy in its own right, and it expands out into the space formerly occupied by the parent waves.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg

There are any number of levels of energy density from the deepest space to the core of a big crunch, but there are three unique levels of wave action based on the amount of energy contained in a quantum of energy that is required by the action process at that level. (Big Bang arenas, wave-particles, the oscillations in the foundation background)

The amount of energy in each of their representative quanta ranges across the entire wave energy scale, from the big bangs at the top of the scale, and down to the tiny oscillations at the foundational background level, with wave particle action filling the gap.

1) Big Bang Arena action at the macro level contains an arena quantum of energy, and when two arena waves converge they produce a big crunch that collapse/bangs into a new arena wave.

2) Wave-particle action at the particle level centers around high energy density spots, also referred to a quanta in the process of quantum action at the wave-particle level. Each high energy density spot is the origin of a new third wave that distributes the quantum of energy in the spot, spherically, in the form of a new third wave, and the continual production of new third waves assures the continual formation of new high energy density spots, and that continual wave action maintains the presence of the wave particle.

3) The oscillating action at the foundational background level is characterized by the fact that the duration between a wave-wave intersection at the level, and an intersection between the new third wave produced by that intersection and its first subsequent intersection thereafter, equals the wave-wave intersection time delay. This concept establishes the meaning of “an instant” as opposed to instantaneous, lol. The oscillating wave action is self-perpetuating, governed by an ISU limit imposed that establishes a maximum energy density in a given energy density environment.

It must be noted that this characterization of the oscillating wave action refers to an “otherwise waveless foundational background of space”. That is a stipulation that cannot be honored in the ISU, meaning that there cannot be a patch of oscillating foundational background that is not already at work assisting the advance of meaningful gravitational waves that fill all space, and therefore there is no “otherwise waveless foundational background of space”. But the concept is instructional when it comes to understanding the ISU model.

I don’t feel that I have confused the issue of “What’s waving” enough so far, but I’m not done yet either.

From the last post, the idea of “instructional convenience” is a good way to refer to the concept of the oscillating foundational background, the lowest level of wave action of the ISU model, but the level that is instrumental in the advance of wave action through space. The wave action discussion from the last post is continued in order to address what goes on when the oscillating background is not waveless, and as I said, it never is waveless. The point by point oscillations are always there, and always characterized by fluctuations in the amount of wave energy converging at each point in space.

For the answer to the question “What’s waving” we refer back to the “otherwise waveless” stipulation made about the oscillating wave action that I said could not be honored in the ISU. Well, the reason that that stipulation cannot be honored gets right to the heart of the answer to the question, “What is waving”.

There is so much directional gravitational wave energy traversing space at all points, that there are always many multiple waves passing any given point in space at all times from all directions from an infinite history of wave action across an infinite universe. The cause of the fluctuations is the directional imbalances in the amount of wave energy arriving at a given point, and because of the mixed incoherent frequencies arriving from each direction, etc. If you stipulate an oscillating background that is “otherwise waveless” then none of those causes of the fluctuations are present.

Conclusion, the varied wave actions at each point in space are all part of the point by point and instant by instant fluctuations that have been named the “oscillating foundational background of the medium of space” that serves to advance wave action through space. Therefore, when I refer to each point in space as having a hint of mass, it is based on the concept that directional gravitational waves cancel each other out, but there is always an imbalance at each point, and the energy value of that imbalance accounts for the “hint” of mass that is present at each point.

So the answer to what is waving is the point by point level of wave energy density; it is in a constant state of flux for the reasons mentioned above, and the change in energy point by point due to that state of flux, causes the oscillations that advance the gravitational wave action that is coming from all directions and is therefore being advanced in all directions by the spherical oscillations.

But that still reads like oscillations of the medium of space create gravity energy waves which are the medium of space.

Lol, and are you saying there is something wrong with that?

Actually, the oscillations cancel out except for that amount that is referred to as the imbalance, point by point. Technically, the oscillating background assists the advance of gravitational wave energy, but each meaningful wave can be backtracked to an event; some as energetic as the in swirling death spiral of two blackholes, and some as inconsequential as the apple falling to the ground. Regardless of the magnitude of the event that initiates the gravitational wave though, gravity is not caused by the oscillations, the oscillation help in the propagation of the waves traversing space.

But that still reads like oscillations of the medium of space create gravity energy waves which are the medium of space.

Lol, and are you saying there is something wrong with that?

Actually, the oscillations cancel out except for that amount that is referred to as the imbalance, point by point. Technically, the oscillating background assists the advance of gravitational wave energy, but each meaningful wave can be backtracked to an event; some as energetic as the in swirling death spiral of two blackholes, and some as inconsequential as the apple falling to the ground. Regardless of the magnitude of the event that initiates the gravitational wave though, gravity is not caused by the oscillations, the oscillation help in the propagation of the waves traversing space.

But u cant have oscillations creating waves which create oscillations. There has to be a fundamental background medium. If u give it a name u might get a Nobel, but if u dont give it a name then for sure no Nobel. It has to be catchy, or sexy. String is already taken. U have more chance of a Nobel if it ends in -on or in -ther. Hardon might work. How about Onion.

Onion might work. Since I characterize each point in the oscillating (fluctuating is also a word that applies to the action) background as consisting of layer upon layer of directional waves, all converging at each point in space, why not call it onions for the prize. I should point out that I have already been awarded the prestigious BogieAward by Thebox, do you want me to look up the link ...https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547141#msg547141

The arrival of a meaningful gravitational wave is directional, perhaps from nearby quantum action, or from some distant action or high energy event, but regardless of the source of the gravitational waves, the velocity of the waves through the local energy density environment is constrained by the oscillating background. The model calls for an instant of time delay with each oscillation, and over a distance through the foundational background of space, all of those instants of time-delay set the local speed limit for light and gravity through the medium of space.

Given that the proximity of mass contributes to the local gravitational wave energy density, the time-delay is greater as the energy density of the local environment increases, and the speed of light and gravity are affected accordingly; slowing as the energy density increases.

Note: The oscillations inhibit the velocity of the advance, but the directional advance is determined by the fact that the high density wave energy flow imposes itself in the direction from higher to lower energy density, meaning that the wavefront moves in the direction of the lowest gravitational wave energy density environment, which is always in front of the wavefront. That is the force of energy density equalization at work.

The time-delay

In regard to the prediction of the time-delay associated with each wave-wave intersection, I am reminded that as I was building this model years ago (I think this was a topic at SciForums where I was Quantum_Wave), one of the ideas I was contemplating as a precondition to the Big Bang was a big crunch. There would have to have been a whole sequence of events over billions of years, and the intersection and overlap of two expanding “parent” big bang arena waves was a consideration. A corresponding contemplation was about how a big crunch progressed into a collapse/bang (the mechanics of the big bang); the whole process became known as Big Bang Arena Action.

The resulting ISU model has retained that scenario, and the “sameness doctrine” evolved from it because the same scenario applies nicely to the process of quantum action at the wave-particle level, albeit near the opposite end of the time duration scale. The concept of the time delay began with the billions of years it would take for two parent arenas to converge, for a big crunch out the swirling rendezvous of their merging galactic matter and energy, and then for that crunch to reach “critical capacity” and collapse under the compression of its own weight.

Does dis new model of gravity take into account d elliptical orbit of d earth?Also, isn't d moon very verry slowwly drifting apart from d earth?& isn't d earth slowin down in terms of revolutions on its axis?🏄

I think Atom Smasher the OP hasnt been around since 2009. But the gravity theory that he mentioned looks much like the gravity of (my)(our) aether theory. I am thinking that all gravity theories mentioned here have the gravitational attraction force being proportional to 1/RR (R being distance tween centers), & i aint a scientist or mathematician but i think that a 1/RR relationship leads to elliptical orbits, hencely it must be rare to come across a gravity theory that doesnt give elliptical orbits.

Re the spins of moons & planets i think that such spins must slow. It would be difficult to think of a scenario where spins increased. Praps a very flexible blob with zero spin orbiting another blob might eventually spin-up to have a spin equal to its orbital frequency due to tidal drag effects (but i aint no scientist).

And re the Moon drifting from Earth i forget the reason. U would think that the small friction to be found in space would slow the Moon's orbit & that it would drift inwards & eventually merge with Earth. A gravity theory with a slow speed of gravity would they say result in a moon drifting outwards, because a moon & planet orbit their barycenter, & if the gravitational pull on the moon is always pointing to the old location of the planet then the moon gets pulled ahead all the time & its orbit must speed up whilst the planet's speeds down.But aether theory mainly goes along with Van Flandern that the speed of gravity is over 20 billion c based on the very fact that we do not such outwards drifts (with all due respect to the Moon).

U say model of gravity. The aether gravity theory is not a model, it is meant to be reality. But any description of reality must be incomplete & in that sense there must always be holes, so reality always ends a little or a lot short. But it is still reality, or it is meant to be. Most realities end up to be wrong, hencely i guess that they were models all along, albeit bad models.

Einstein's spacetime is not reality, it aint even a model, it is somewhere lower than a model, it is a mathtrick sitting in mathland, & it doesnt even deserve the status of being even a pretense of a model. Lower than a mathtrick is a law. Here there is no reality no model no mathtrick, just a law telling u what to do.Below the laws u have quantum theory.Below quantum theory u have string theory.

But u cant have oscillations creating waves which create oscillations. There has to be a fundamental background medium. If u give it a name u might get a Nobel, …

There should not be any Nobel talk on a layman science enthusiast thread unless you just want to poke fun, and as you can tell, I’m Ok with people doing that, lol.

I came back to this post … because we have exchanged a few comments, but we haven’t really stepped up and tried to understand each other; just some passing efforts that didn’t get us any closer in regard to our ideas, though I have pointed out some common ground. When I said that we have the same universe to work with, and we have the same observables, you didn’t seem comfortable going that far, for reasons that you have eluded about, and commented on. I tried to equate the oscillating background to the aether, and that excited no thoughts of common ground as far as I could tell.

The reason I am readdressing your post is to take some time to address your comment, “There has to be a fundamental background medium”.

From that statement I would say that you cannot see how I have included a description of the background in my recent posts. I have described what was “waving” in terms of what I call the Oscillating foundational background of space, and have made several references to the medium of space. I am picking up on the fact that my efforts have made no progress toward common understanding, am I right?

I have taken to heart that my explanation did not alleviate your concerns, and don’t want to “wave” you off because I aim to improve my model as I go, so I’ll postpone my 2019 ISU update until I can appreciate exactly what you are trying to tell me. If necessary I will just go back to my earlier threads and update them there with some of the new material as opposed to trying to do it here on Atom Smasher’s thread (a bad idea anyway, lol).

If you can put your finger on a few specifics, and take a little time and explain to me ways I could improve the "background" discussion that I have presented so far in my update, I can still go back and revise what I have updated since reply #81 without losing much momentum.

But u cant have oscillations creating waves which create oscillations. There has to be a fundamental background medium. If u give it a name u might get a Nobel, …

There should not be any Nobel talk on a layman science enthusiast thread unless you just want to poke fun, and as you can tell, I’m Ok with people doing that, lol.

I came back to this post … because we have exchanged a few comments, but we haven’t really stepped up and tried to understand each other; just some passing efforts that didn’t get us any closer in regard to our ideas, though I have pointed out some common ground. When I said that we have the same universe to work with, and we have the same observables, you didn’t seem comfortable going that far, for reasons that you have eluded about, and commented on. I tried to equate the oscillating background to the aether, and that excited no thoughts of common ground as far as I could tell.

The reason I am readdressing your post is to take some time to address your comment, “There has to be a fundamental background medium”.

From that statement I would say that you cannot see how I have included a description of the background in my recent posts. I have described what was “waving” in terms of what I call the Oscillating foundational background of space, and have made several references to the medium of space. I am picking up on the fact that my efforts have made no progress toward common understanding, am I right?

I have taken to heart that my explanation did not alleviate your concerns, and don’t want to “wave” you off because I aim to improve my model as I go, so I’ll postpone my 2019 ISU update until I can appreciate exactly what you are trying to tell me. If necessary I will just go back to my earlier threads and update them there with some of the new material as opposed to trying to do it here on Atom Smasher’s thread (a bad idea anyway, lol).

If you can put your finger on a few specifics, and take a little time and explain to me ways I could improve the "background" discussion that I have presented so far in my update, I can still go back and revise what I have updated since reply #81 without losing much momentum.

Off the top of my head without re-reading my impressions are....

(1) I think that invoking the medium of space or of vacuum is ambiguous, space & vacuum can be (i) completely empty of quantum things & sub-quantum things, or (ii) they can be empty of QTs but have SQTs, or (iii) can have QTs but no SQTs, or (iv) can have both QTs & SQTs. Re thems QTs these might be specified to (a) include or not include photons & (b) to include or not include em radiation. And even here photons can be specified to be particles or waves or both. And probly em radiation can be specified to be a wave or even to be a photon.In my aether theory empty space always has praethons (the fundamental essence)(a SQT) & aether (a SQT)(an excitation of the praether). However there is the possibility in Ranzan's DSSU that parts of our cosmic cells might have space that has praethons but no aether, this might be at Ranzan's cell center where Ranzan's aether is created (a minor side issue)(just saying)(Ranzan doesnt mention any kind of praether)(praether is my invention)(i had to make aether a process so that it could be annihilated)(Ranzan hasnt given that any consideration)(no big deal).Anyhow instead of invoking an ambiguous space or vacuum one should give it a name, either a new unambiguous name linked to attributes that u specify (eg Gravaether or Gravions), or if near enuff is good enuff then simply call it aether.

(2) There are lots of theories around that invoke pulsating dipoles etc etc for the creation of particles. And or waves of excitations meeting here or there to make solitons or something that are particles. And they all sound very similar.

(3) I think one cant do much better than specify & define every little thing in the theory including the process, as far as possible. SQTs & QTs, photons & em radiation, elementary particles, gravity & inertia. Otherwise i reckon i could make a pro-forma for use in forums where i would have say two pages of standard wording with standard terminology with just a few small blank spaces to write something different about one's pet theory, & with the odd needed choice here & there where u cross out whatever is not applicable, & the odd choice of favorite terms (vibration-oscillation-excitation-spin-vortex), & most theories that i see would look the same. I bet that i could describe the same theory two different ways using different terms.

But the main No1 thing is to do a good job of (1). Having said that i realize that aether theories suffer the same need. And Einsteinology is at the bottom of the barrel. I like to say Aetherists but of course there is no such thing, or, there is, but they all believe different things (throo the ages).

(1) I think that invoking the medium of space or of vacuum is ambiguous, space & vacuum can be (i) completely empty of quantum things & sub-quantum things, or (ii) they can be empty of QTs but have SQTs, or (iii) can have QTs but no SQTs, or (iv) can have both QTs & SQTs. Re thems QTs these might be specified to (a) include or not include photons & (b) to include or not include em radiation. And even here photons can be specified to be particles or waves or both. And probly em radiation can be specified to be a wave or even to be a photon.In my aether theory empty space always has praethons (the fundamental essence)(a SQT) & aether (a SQT)(an excitation of the praether). However there is the possibility in Ranzan's DSSU that parts of our cosmic cells might have space that has praethons but no aether, this might be at Ranzan's cell center where Ranzan's aether is created (a minor side issue)(just saying)(Ranzan doesnt mention any kind of praether)(praether is my invention)(i had to make aether a process so that it could be annihilated)(Ranzan hasnt given that any consideration)(no big deal).Anyhow instead of invoking an ambiguous space or vacuum one should give it a name, either a new unambiguous name linked to attributes that u specify (eg Gravaether or Gravions), or if near enuff is good enuff then simply call it aether.

(2) There are lots of theories around that invoke pulsating dipoles etc etc for the creation of particles. And or waves of excitations meeting here or there to make solitons or something that are particles. And they all sound very similar.

(3) I think one cant do much better than specify & define every little thing in the theory including the process, as far as possible. SQTs & QTs, photons & em radiation, elementary particles, gravity & inertia. Otherwise i reckon i could make a pro-forma for use in forums where i would have say two pages of standard wording with standard terminology with just a few small blank spaces to write something different about one's pet theory, & with the odd needed choice here & there where u cross out whatever is not applicable, & the odd choice of favorite terms (vibration-oscillation-excitation-spin-vortex), & most theories that i see would look the same. I bet that i could describe the same theory two different ways using different terms.

But the main No1 thing is to do a good job of (1). Having said that i realize that aether theories suffer the same need. And Einsteinology is at the bottom of the barrel. I like to say Aetherists but of course there is no such thing, or, there is, but they all believe different things (throo the ages).

That’s all well and good, but in all of that, you didn’t acknowledge anything from my posts that I could grab on to, to say why you come back again with the same reason they don’t make sense to you. Are my pages really a complete disconnect for you? Did you not notice my references to the foundational background or the medium of space? You didn’t reference any content in my posts, or acknowledge any of the cosmological issues that I have addressed with graphics and explanations, but referred to Ranzan; is he well known, a recognized authority? That response you gave was full of maybes, could be’s, partial suggestions and thoughts, and words that only you know the meaning of. Is that your final answer, lol?

That’s all well and good, but in all of that, you didn’t acknowledge anything from my posts that I could grab on to, to say why you come back again with the same reason they don’t make sense to you. Are my pages really a complete disconnect for you? Did you not notice my references to the foundational background or the medium of space? You didn’t reference any content in my posts, or acknowledge any of the cosmological issues that I have addressed with graphics and explanations, but referred to Ranzan; is he well known, a recognized authority? That response you gave was full of maybes, could be’s, partial suggestions and thoughts, and words that only you know the meaning of. Is that your final answer, lol?

A good question for starters is how do two masses attract in ISU. In other words how do we have gravity.

For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, the Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force, & an opposite force acts on the Earth.And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way. Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).All quantum things that we see or feel have mass, eg free photons & free neutrinos, ie they annihilate aether.A free photon is the true elementary particle, & when forming a loop is said to be a confined photon, which is an electron or quark or proton etc. When a free photon becomes a confined photon its mass increases praps a million fold, depending on the tightness of the confinement (in which case mass is not conserved).ElectroMagnetic radiation consists of photaenos which are (tornadic probly) excitations of the aether that emanate from the helical central body of a photon & are a part of the photon. Photaenos are quantum, & therefore have mass, but this possession of mass is probly not critical to this present aether theory. If they dont have mass then we say that they are subquantum (no harm done).Energy has no gravitational mass & no inertial mass. There is no such thing as virtual mass or rest mass.An objects speed throo the aether (the aetherwind blowing throo an object) will affect the shape & size of the object due to Lorentz length contraction, & the true density will change, but the mass does not change.Due to Lorentz length contraction & Lorentz ticking dilation affecting our meter rods & clocks there is potential for perceived mass & gravitational force to be different to true mass & true force, depending on the velocity of the aetherwind, but as LLC & LTD affect all objects & rods & clocks etc equally then it is considered that we have a happy situation where perceived mass & force & acceleration is equal to true (otherwise physics would be Hell).

That explanation covers the basics re gravity mass & inertia in my aether theory (the giant holes are not critical). What exactly is aether? (Aether is an excitation of praether)( praether, made of praethons, is the actual fundamental thing)(everything else is a process of the praether). What is the length of a photon? (We dont know).What happens to annihilated aether? (Nothing)(aether is only a process). How far do photaenos propagate, & how fast? (They propagate untill they run out of steam, probly a quantum thing)(they propagate at 5c kmps). Does the slowing of a photon in water affect its mass? (No). Does a spinning body suck aether inwards due to centrifugal inertia & centrifugal acceleration? (Yes). If yes how does this affect the mass of the body? (The gravitational mass is not changed)(but we do have some pseudo-mass due to the extra inflow of aether)(here the streamlines converge in 2D towards the equator, in which case the attractive force is proportional to 1/R)(u can say that the attractional mass is greater near the equator)(but aether outflow at the two poles might reduce attraction near the poles, it depends).In other words are spinning bodies more massive? (Yes & no)(the attractional mass is greater near equator, but might be less near the poles)(but the inertial mass is not affected). Is the gravitational mass of an electron equal to the inertial mass? (No)(the two effects are different, gravi-mass being due to acceleration of aether inflow due to the annihilation of aether, inertial-mass being due to the resistance of the aether to acceleration)(gravi-mass needs no other mass nearbye)(inertial-mass is zero unless there is other mass nearbye)(but in practice there is always mass nearbye, & in our macro world it is safe to say that we have equivalence tween gravity & inertia).Is gravi-mass equal to inertial-mass? (Yes & no)(there is no such thing as gravi-mass because we cannot measure it)(what we measure is nothing but inertial-mass)(therefore scientists who say that gravitational mass has been measured to be equal to inertial mass to fifteen decimal places are really saying that inertial mass is equal to inertial mass to fifteen decimal places)(i predict one hundred decimal places). When do i get my Nobel? (Never).

A good question for starters is how do two masses attract in ISU. In other words how do we have gravity.For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, the Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force, & an opposite force acts on the Earth.And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way. Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).All quantum things that we see or feel have mass, eg free photons & free neutrinos, ie they annihilate aether.A free photon is the true elementary particle, & when forming a loop is said to be a confined photon, which is an electron or quark or proton etc. When a free photon becomes a confined photon its mass increases praps a million fold, depending on the tightness of the confinement (in which case mass is not conserved).ElectroMagnetic radiation consists of photaenos which are (tornadic probly) excitations of the aether that emanate from the helical central body of a photon & are a part of the photon. Photaenos are quantum, & therefore have mass, but this possession of mass is probly not critical to this present aether theory. If they dont have mass then we say that they are subquantum (no harm done).Energy has no gravitational mass & no inertial mass. There is no such thing as virtual mass or rest mass.An objects speed throo the aether (the aetherwind blowing throo an object) will affect the shape & size of the object due to Lorentz length contraction, & the true density will change, but the mass does not change.Due to Lorentz length contraction & Lorentz ticking dilation affecting our meter rods & clocks there is potential for perceived mass & gravitational force to be different to true mass & true force, depending on the velocity of the aetherwind, but as LLC & LTD affect all objects & rods & clocks etc equally then it is considered that we have a happy situation where perceived mass & force & acceleration is equal to true (otherwise physics would be Hell).

That explanation covers the basics re gravity mass & inertia in my aether theory (the giant holes are not critical). What exactly is aether? (Aether is an excitation of praether)( praether, made of praethons, is the actual fundamental thing)(everything else is a process of the praether). What is the length of a photon? (We dont know).What happens to annihilated aether? (Nothing)(aether is only a process). How far do photaenos propagate, & how fast? (They propagate untill they run out of steam, probly a quantum thing)(they propagate at 5c kmps). Does the slowing of a photon in water affect its mass? (No). Does a spinning body suck aether inwards due to centrifugal inertia & centrifugal acceleration? (Yes). If yes how does this affect the mass of the body? (The gravitational mass is not changed)(but we do have some pseudo-mass due to the extra inflow of aether)(here the streamlines converge in 2D towards the equator, in which case the attractive force is proportional to 1/R)(u can say that the attractional mass is greater near the equator)(but aether outflow at the two poles might reduce attraction near the poles, it depends).In other words are spinning bodies more massive? (Yes & no)(the attractional mass is greater near equator, but might be less near the poles)(but the inertial mass is not affected). Is the gravitational mass of an electron equal to the inertial mass? (No)(the two effects are different, gravi-mass being due to acceleration of aether inflow due to the annihilation of aether, inertial-mass being due to the resistance of the aether to acceleration)(gravi-mass needs no other mass nearbye)(inertial-mass is zero unless there is other mass nearbye)(but in practice there is always mass nearbye, & in our macro world it is safe to say that we have equivalence tween gravity & inertia).Is gravi-mass equal to inertial-mass? (Yes & no)(there is no such thing as gravi-mass because we cannot measure it)(what we measure is nothing but inertial-mass)(therefore scientists who say that gravitational mass has been measured to be equal to inertial mass to fifteen decimal places are really saying that inertial mass is equal to inertial mass to fifteen decimal places)(i predict one hundred decimal places). When do i get my Nobel? (Never).

You went to a lot of work to explain your model, and I appreciate that explanation. I’m beginning to realize that there isn’t any more chance that you would understand my response to your question, “A good question for starters is how do two masses attract in ISU In other words how do we have gravity?”, than I have of understanding the explanation you gave (understanding and believing are not the same, but understanding precedes believing).

We are two science enthusiasts talking about the complex details of our own “as yet” unknown-about explanations for the cause of gravity, and it is like an invitation to a wild party attended by two schools where no one goes home sober, lol.

Anyway, here is my offering:

How two masses attract in the ISU

1) Particles and objects have mass, and move through the medium of space (see link to a description below) in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy density source. The net gravitational wave energy density at each location in space is determined by the relative proximity (distance and motion) of all massive objects in space.

2) That can be said, based on the premise that particles and objects with mass absorb and emit gravitational wave energy. The wave energy emitted by one object traverses the medium of space in all directions, and when the wave energy arrives at surrounding objects, it gets absorbed by the distant object.

4) All particles have mass in the ISU and are called wave-particles. The wave particles in an expanding big bang arena form from the decay of the hot dense plasma ball of energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of a preceding big crunch. Because the wave-particles from in an expanding energy density environment, they are imparted with separation momentum as they form, meaning wave-particles are all moving away from each other as they form. However, gravity is stronger than separation momentum in the close quarters of a hot dense new big bang arena, and so wave-particles clump to form stars and galactic structure. The galactic structure conservers the separation momentum, and so galaxies and galaxy groups are all moving wave from each other as well. The arenas are continually expanding and will expand until their expansion is interrupted by converging with adjacent expanding arenas.

5) Once the stable wave-particles have formed in the expanding new arena, the presence of the initial massive wave particles is maintained by the continual flow of gravitational waves from all directions; that flow provides the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components that maintains the presence of the wave-particles.

6) Wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. Each particle has its own “space” which is described as a standing wave pattern, where all of the quanta in the pattern are continually forming and disbursing as the directional wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space passes through from all directions. That flow from all directions sets up the standing wave environment that is characteristic of the wave-particle space.

7) The quanta that make up the mass of the wave-particles consist of gravitational wave convergences, the high energy fluctuations referred to as high density spots; the spots are groups of those fluctuations that were described in the recent explanation of “what is waving”.

8 ) The location of the mass of a particle is established by of all of the quanta that occupy the standing wave pattern that represents the presence of the wave-particle. The mass is proportional to the number of quanta. It seem unnecessary to say, but every wave-particle has location at all times, as opposed to virtual particles and fluctuations that pop in and out of existence.

9) Wave-particles move in the direction of the highest gravitational wave energy density in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space because they emit continual out flow, and that out flowing gravitational wave energy needs to be continually replaced from the directional inflow of gravitational wave energy from the surrounding profile of space. The highest directional inflow provides the most replacement wave energy to the energy hungry wave-particles, which causes motion in that direction.

And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way. Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.

So mass is a property of the need for inertial force for acceleration, to offset the drag that the aether resists when you accelerate? Does an object have mass if it is not being accelerated?

An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.

It sounds a little like the explanation I would expect for an object “at rest”. How is uniform velocioty different from being at rest, and what is the difference in aehter annihilation and aether drag?

As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.

Why such extreme velocities? How are those extreme velocities activated? You mention the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation, and I don’t understand how that would occur?

I do see your reference to a shock-front or pjulse of wave, and that sounds a little familiar to my idea of wave action; what would you say is waving in that case?

The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).

I don’t see why you are distinguishing between very large object on a galactic scale. Why wouldn’t there be this effect at smaller scales?

I’ll just mention those questions, and maybe your answers will clear a few things up for me so I can work my way further through your post.

1) Particles and objects have mass, and move through the medium of space (see link to a description below) in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy density source. The net gravitational wave energy density at each location in space is determined by the relative proximity (distance and motion) of all massive objects in space.

2) That can be said, based on the premise that particles and objects with mass absorb and emit gravitational wave energy. The wave energy emitted by one object traverses the medium of space in all directions, and when the wave energy arrives at surrounding objects, it gets absorbed by the distant object.

4) All particles have mass in the ISU and are called wave-particles. The wave particles in an expanding big bang arena form from the decay of the hot dense plasma ball of energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of a preceding big crunch. Because the wave-particles from in an expanding energy density environment, they are imparted with separation momentum as they form, meaning wave-particles are all moving away from each other as they form. However, gravity is stronger than separation momentum in the close quarters of a hot dense new big bang arena, and so wave-particles clump to form stars and galactic structure. The galactic structure conservers the separation momentum, and so galaxies and galaxy groups are all moving wave from each other as well. The arenas are continually expanding and will expand until their expansion is interrupted by converging with adjacent expanding arenas.

5) Once the stable wave-particles have formed in the expanding new arena, the presence of the initial massive wave particles is maintained by the continual flow of gravitational waves from all directions; that flow provides the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components that maintains the presence of the wave-particles.

6) Wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. Each particle has its own “space” which is described as a standing wave pattern, where all of the quanta in the pattern are continually forming and disbursing as the directional wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space passes through from all directions. That flow from all directions sets up the standing wave environment that is characteristic of the wave-particle space.

7) The quanta that make up the mass of the wave-particles consist of gravitational wave convergences, the high energy fluctuations referred to as high density spots; the spots are groups of those fluctuations that were described in the recent explanation of “what is waving”.

8 ) The location of the mass of a particle is established by of all of the quanta that occupy the standing wave pattern that represents the presence of the wave-particle. The mass is proportional to the number of quanta. It seem unnecessary to say, but every wave-particle has location at all times, as opposed to virtual particles and fluctuations that pop in and out of existence.

9) Wave-particles move in the direction of the highest gravitational wave energy density in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space because they emit continual out flow, and that out flowing gravitational wave energy needs to be continually replaced from the directional inflow of gravitational wave energy from the surrounding profile of space. The highest directional inflow provides the most replacement wave energy to the energy hungry wave-particles, which causes motion in that direction.

10) That is how two masses attract in the ISU.

Ok, i was particularly interested in (9). The outflow of GW energy is more or less the exact opposite of the aether theory where u have an inflow of aether. Your invoking of an attraction to the strongest source of GW energy is kind of counter intuitive & less natural to swallow but it shouldnt be difficult to add some sort of suitable sweet mechanism to that basic bland postulate.

For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, …

Is this a case of the inflow of aether into the earth pushing things down toward the earth? Isn’t the man also annihilating aether from his feet up, and where is that aether coming from? Yes its the acceleration of aether into Earth that drags the man, the velocity of the inflow has no effect. And yes the man too has an inflow, hencely the gross effect is some kind of mysterious addition (which i don’t understand)(its more complicated than one might think).

Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force, & an opposite force acts on the Earth.

Just a question here, … RR stands for radius squared, correct? If we are talking volume instead of area, would the right equation be for volume? Equation for the volume of a sphere: https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Volume-of-a-SphereV = 4/3 Pi r^3 I don’t think that the vol equation helps. On the other hand i don’t actually say how i get to that 1/RR relationship re force. I intentionally gloss over that, because it is more complicated than it looks. Ranzan attempts a derivation for 1/RR & he has to resort to giving the aether a contractile nature, ie his aether self-destructs in mid-air so to speak, before it even gets to any mass, to get the needed additional acceleration to arrive at the known 1/RR relationship.

And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way. Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.

So mass is a property of the need for inertial force for acceleration, to offset the drag that the aether resists when you accelerate? Does an object have mass if it is not being accelerated? Yes well put. And an interesting question. Re gravi-mass, this exists all the time, because mass is continuously annihilating aether. Re inert-mass, this too exists all the time, because all objects are being accelerated all the time (ie they are in freefall all the time), unless the object happens to be (very briefly) at a location in space where the aetherwind has no acceleration (lots of free but no fall).

An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.

It sounds a little like the explanation I would expect for an object “at rest”. How is uniform velocity different from being at rest, and what is the difference in aether annihilation and aether drag?Yes velocity (ie size of aetherwind) makes no difference. But who knows, there might be a small difference, eg if a rest. It seems to me that there is no annihilation associated with inertial drag. And praps no slippage. But it would be easy to cater for a theory that did say there was a little annihilation going on in lots of places for lots of reasons, & a little slippage. In fact i like the idea of slippage, i would like to see a slippage rate of 50% because this would explain 1.75 arcsec of bending at the Sun's limb.

As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.

Why such extreme velocities? How are those extreme velocities activated? Van Flandern & i think LaPlace worked that out based on the fact that any slower & we would see strange things happening to orbits. The velocities involve a small amount of aether briefly moving at that hi velocity whilst the actual flow of the bulk of the aether might be sitting still or moving at no more than say c/600. It’s a bit like sound waves, the wave moves at Mach1, & bits of air briefly move at Mach1, whilst the bulk of the air might be just sitting still. You mention the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation, and I don’t understand how that would occur?Aether having no mass can merely transfer force etc from object to object. This must involve a 3D tension in the aether, needing lots of surrounding mass in every direction to be fully efficient. As an object is say attracted to say Earth & as the object moves closer the tension gradually increases & this transfers to the source, a continuous back & forth process, a reverberation if u like. Re the Earth & the Sun the reverberation would go back & forth to & from the Sun at least 20 billion times per second. I do see your reference to a shock-front or pulse or wave, and that sounds a little familiar to my idea of wave action; what would you say is waving in that case?The aether is the equivalent of the air in relation to sound waves.

The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).

I don’t see why you are distinguishing between very large object on a galactic scale. Why wouldn’t there be this effect at smaller scales?.This effect happens equally at all scales. But it must show up very well at large scales. For example inside the Milky Way the average distance tween stars might be say 10 lightyears measured radially, but the average distance measured axially square to the disc might be 100 lightyears. Here i am imagining a sphere neatly covering the Milky Way, & the sphere defining the limit of the geometry for average distance purposes. Anyhow the dearth of mass axially must result in a loss of efficiency in the tension & reverberation axially, meaning that a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way cant accord with Newton's equation for gravitational attraction. But Einsteinians wont let go of Newton & hencely have to invent Dark Matter. I’ll just mention those questions, and maybe your answers will clear a few things up for me so I can work my way further through your post.Actually my answers have cleverly avoided a few complications that i struggle with but wont get into for now.

Ok, i was particularly interested in (9). The outflow of GW energy is more or less the exact opposite of the aether theory where u have an inflow of aether. Your invoking of an attraction to the strongest source of GW energy is kind of counter intuitive & less natural to swallow but it shouldnt be difficult to add some sort of suitable sweet mechanism to that basic bland postulate.

What speeds are involved with GWs?What is a good name for the medium?

I see why you point that out, and understand why you see it as opposite, because in regard to a universe filled with aether-space, the ISU content in (9) might (with my misconceptions) go like this:

Aether-space is annihilated in the space around the wave-particle in all directions (spherically) since it is flowing to the mass from all directions. However the annihilation is higher, proportionally, in the direction of motion because more aether is exposed or dragged to the mass as the mass moves directionally through the aether. Further, the creation (or replacement mechanism) of aether caused by the mass is spherical and becomes aether-in-space in all directions, and will eventually be annihilated by encountering distant mass.

Note that the outflow of GW in the ISU is always spherical (in all directions equally) because it is initiated by the pulsing wave action within the wave-particle core, and reaches out toward distant objects in all directions in space, that will eventually absorb it.

When I say motion is in the direction of the net highest source of GW, I am saying that the motion is due to the gravitational attraction of distant mass, which becomes the direction of motion. The “mechanics” scenario is that the wave-particle refreshes itself with gravitational wave energy (adds quanta) from that highest source in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, to replace the quanta lost due to the spherical wave energy emission. Remember wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments in the ISU.

The speed involved with the GWs is light speed. May I point out “light” and the out flowing GW energy are the same animal, except “light” is the out flowing gravitational wave energy of one type of wave-particle … photons; I’m sure photons came to mind automatically, lol.

The known science is that photon wave-particles travel at the speed of light which is measurable, but the speed of gravity is a big discussion for another time, but there is some logic that it works at light speed, and there is some logic that it is instantly in effect between any two objects because those objects, or the energy that they are composed of, has an infinite history itself, and that, in a sense, gives it an infinite presence …(?) .

A name for the “medium’ in the ISU, as if the “medium of space” isn’t catchy enough, might be something derived from the “gravitational wave energy density profile of space”; Gwed? I don’t like the sound of that. GDP? Already taken by finance. Wave-energy profile? WEP, too wimpy (no offense to the actual wimps out there).